Photographing art for reproduction

Every time I write a book I get tied in knots over photographing the art. Through the years I've had pretty good success with an SLR, slide film and photofloods, even though I had to go through some ridiculous contortions to fit my equipment into the space in my studio. When I needed 4 x 5s I just went to Graphics Terminal color lab downtown. For The New Creative Artist some artists sent digital images, which I hadn't dealt with before in submitting to the publisher. We had quite a go-around until they agreed to look at them and see if they were acceptable. Since they had all been done by professional artists, of course they were just fine. Most of the artists sent slides or transparencies. Now it seems that the publisher's graphics department is more open to digital submission, but they are setting the bar pretty high for most artists--10 million pixels, separate macro lens, no zoom lens, 4800K photofloods, and other specifications that make it almost impossible for most artists to comply if they don't already have the equipment. They do mention that 7 MP would be fine if the repro is going to be less than 8 x 10, but just in case they want to use it for the cover or full-page chapter art, it should be shot at 10 MP. I talked to my camera guy today at Fairborn Camera and he recommended a Nikon D30X (I think that's what he said) if I plan to upgrade from my Canon G6, but I'm not sure I want to get into that. The problem, of course, is the step-by-step demos, which you can't run down to the color lab to get shot at every stage. What's my point? I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud here. Should I get out my Pentax SLR and photofloods and do it the old-fashioned way or tackle the learning curve of a new camera while I'm trying to write a book? 'Tis a puzzlement.